User talk:El C: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:15, 16 September 2006

poetry

Why should poetry not be a slogan?

Why should poetry not be

biased

when life is not at all itself

For life's sake,

I expect a poem to be

a slogan

a dagger

a fist

and a bullet if necessary

If you have the capacity to tremble with indignation every time that an injustice is committed in the world, then we are comrades. – Che.

File:Herooflabor.jpg

Archived Discussions

Archive 2 3

History of the name Azerbaijan

Hi. Would you mind to have a look at the History of the name Azerbaijan again? I think it is too early to unprotect it. I’m having problems with user Khosrow II, who tries to use this article for anti-Azerbaijani propaganda. I have no problems discussing and agreeing edits with Ali, who’s a very reasonable person, and we have a positive experience of resolving disputes in the past, but Khosrow is completely different. I would appreciate your input in resolution of the dispute on that article. Regards, Grandmaster 05:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't all of you just ask me to unprotect it? El_C 05:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I personally didn’t. But I did not object to unprotecton either, as I thought we would include only the things we had agreed upon. But it looks like a certain user just takes the opportunity to resume the edit war. Grandmaster 11:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. El_C 23:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot revert an article that was already under protection just because you take sides with GM. I have contacted the admin who had previously protected it!Khosrow II 23:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing is becoming disruptive; if it continues you may be subject to censur. Please start being responsive. Thanks. El_C 23:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is my editing becoming disruptive? Please, compare GM's version of the article to the last version of mine, see how many sourced information he took out (from western sources) and also see how much of his suggestions I kept in the article. I am the only one compromising, so why shouldn::::::'t he compromise on a few issues? Well, I will not compromise anymore, all one has to do is read the discussion page to see how much work I have done to make this article better. All GM has done is start a revert war because he wants to push his POV and make his nation look better. This is like me going to the Iranian human rights article and taking out sourced information because I claim its not neutral. Would you support me there? I dont think so, so I dont understand why you are taking GM's side.Khosrow II 00:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be gaming the system. Please respond to my comment on the article talk page. El_C 00:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is gaming the system?Khosrow II 00:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT#Gaming_the_system. El_C 00:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see how I'm gaming the system... but for now, since I have replied to you, do what I requested, and then we can further discuss the intro. That is what you wanted isnt it? Also, I dont think its kind of you to just assume that I knew exactly what I was doing when I was "gaming the system". I didnt even know what constituted "disruptiveness" or "gaming the system", so shouldnt you have given me a heads up before just blatantly accusing me?Khosrow II 00:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please just attempt to answer the question on the article talk page. Thanks. El_C 00:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I answered it, so please do as I requested.Khosrow II 00:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-reference does not count as an answer. El_C 00:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why wont you fulfill my request. I said revert the article to the version last edited by me, and then simply change the intro to that to the one that GM wants, then we can discuss it to come to a conclusion. That way we will all be happy till we can furthur discuss this issue. So please, do what I ask.Khosrow II 00:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to answer the question to my satisfaction. Please do so if you wish any consideration. El_C 01:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, what do you want me to say? This is ridiculous. I answered it, now fulfill your side of the bargain and we will continue this. Im not asking for much, just for the rest of the infomration to be added to the article. Are you trying to blackmail me into agreeing with you?Khosrow II 01:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bargaining. And please ensure that you conduct yourself in a professional manner or you will be blocked from editing. El_C 01:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My request is simple. I am saying that you can keep the introduction the way it is, just revert the rest of the article to the version last edited by me, because it includes more information (I added informatin before it got protected again, so did GM and Ali). Thats all I'm asking, its simple and its not even bargaining because I'm not gaining anything from it. It seems as though you are trying to blackmale me into agreeing with you.

Also, I am conducting myself very professionally, I dont know what you mean.Khosrow II 02:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insinuating blackmail is grossly unprofessional. I did not ask you to agree with anything, I asked a question, which you seem unable to answer, but it should not be difficult to do if what you say is true. El_C 02:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you my answer, and you said that if I replied to you, you would do what I ask, (what Im asking isnt even a big thing, all I'm asking is that you revert the article back to the last version by me, so that all the information added can be included, and just change the intro to GM's version). Why wont you do it? If you wont do it, then I will have to request for the change on the protected pages article. I dont understand why you wont do it, its not like I gain anything, I just want the most information available to be in the article, and the current version you have protected is old and doesnt contain the new edits.Khosrow II 02:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You gave me no such answer, nor did I agree to do anything. El_C 02:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand your opposition to my proposition. Please tell me what is wrong with my proposition. I already gave you an answer, the definition of controversy means something that is disputed, and there are people who dispute it, therefore, by the very definition of the word controversy, it is a controversy. I dont know what more you want from me. The word controversy is used all the time, especially in the news. Are you going to contact CNN and ask them why they put the word controversy in some of their articles?Khosrow II 02:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unscholarly not to have reliable sources that establish that it is controverial. El_C 02:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fine, you can have the introduction the way you want it. Now please, just revert the article to the last version by me, then we can change the intro. Its done, I'm compromising, and this is going to be the last time.Khosrow II 02:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for a compromise, nor do I want the introduction to be in any specific way, I only care that what it says is well-referenced. I'm unlikely to modify the page further until it's ready to be unrptoected. El_C 03:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for you interference, it was much needed. I would also like to draw your attention to another issue with the same user. In addition to the article that we are currently discussing, he added a very POV paragraph called “Controversy” to almost every article about the country of Azerbaijan. Please see the articles Azerbaijan, History of Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, and Arran (Azerbaijan) (maybe some more). I don’t think it is acceptable to spam all those articles with the same repetitive paragraph. Would you mind to have a look at those as well? Thank you. Grandmaster 06:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I. I am increasingly of the opinion that further steps in dispute resolution are needed here. El_C 07:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What in your opinion those steps could be? Grandmaster 07:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC seems inevitable; but I'll try having a word with the user about this duplication of the section in multiple articles. El_C 07:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. If it does not work, we'll have to try dispute resolution. The problem is that while there's no controversy over the internationally recognized name of the country, this user still included those sections without any valid substantiation of his claims. Grandmaster 09:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

Excuse me, but according to you I violated the three revert policy, can you defend your block as I cannot find where I reverted over 3 times.--Shravak 17:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are excused. Original: one, two, three, four. El_C 20:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq wikistalking and block count

Your request for clarification, and the responses to it, have been moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Zeq.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 02:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Old Cause

My 1666 fire article draft has come out of the closet now—not moved to article space, but I've let the cat out of the bag (Hello, Kitty, was it horrible in there?). It's not a secret any more, so feel free to refer to it. There's a little there now about politics, what do you think? There will be more, as Charles II was very worried that the huge social problem prsented by homelessness and rising prices after the fire would lead to another London rebellion. I believe that's why he was so keen to help the homeless settle elsewhere, the farther away the better. Just as long as they didn't march on the Bastille...no, he can't have been thinking that, can he? Anyway, he was scared the Good Old Cause would come and get him. Bishonen | talk 01:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

By doing this he ended up contributing to its later urban growth, wherein various partially-integrated, resettled localities incresingly connected as a single urban entity. All rather inadvertantly to his more narrowly machavelian plan. Looking forward to reading the additions! El_C 07:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication

Those were before I created the article. Also, I have seen many sections summarized on many Wiki articles that link to the main page. I dont see whats wrong with it.Khosrow II 22:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. These weren't summaries, though, that's the problem; i.e. they read far more like outright duplication than as summaries, which is the problem. But I thought you (mostly) authored the text of that #Controversy section. Am I mistaken? El_C 01:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Becuase like i just told you, I wrote these BEFORE I created the article. Once we finish with the article, I will summarize it and replace what is currently there.Khosrow II 01:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the History of the name Azerbaijan, right? Well, as you can see on the talk page, it may not be immediately ready in that sense (hopefuly, it will soon), so in light of the repetition inherent in the duplication, why don't you remove those for now, then, when you're ready to add summaries, re-add the section/s. I think that would be best because, even duplication aside, at the moment they seem (as you yourself admitted) unrefined. Thus, they might be confusing to our readership. My first concern is Azerbaijan, since I am of the opinion that country articles need to be held to especially high standards, but also the other entries. El_C 01:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IDF and Military of Israel

Hi El_C: Please take a look at the vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 10#Category:Israel Defense Forces. Your expertise is required. Thanks a lot. IZAK 12:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. El_C 19:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested

Any ideas on what to do about SA and my page? I'm fed up. Eric LernerElerner 03:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a request for arbitration will be filed soon, so you'll be able to make your case there. You can also try appealing to the Wikimedia Foundation directly, depending on the severity of the issues (of which I am unsure). El_C 06:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates when closing afds

Hi, please use the {{at}} and {{ab}} templates when closing afds (instead of mfd top and bottom). The mfd templates make the log pages harder to read (because of random spots of color) and might break the count at WP:AFD/Old. And it's faster to type 'at' than 'mfd top'. Thanks. - Bobet 10:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was just not paying attention. Will try to be mindful of it. Thanks for the notice. Regards, El_C 11:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Please feel free to put the talk on your talk page. It doesn't belong on mine; a user's page is a user's page, and one doesn't have to tolerate gratuitous insults by other private users there. Clossius 19:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not insult you or anyone at any time. For my records, the uncensored discussion is here. El_C 19:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

How are you holding up these days? :) —Khoikhoi 19:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get back to you on that front! How have you been? I noticed elsewhere that Rovoam is still out and about. That brings memories! ;) El_C 19:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been pretty good! Rovoam thinks I'm Turkish because of this, this, and this. ;-) —Khoikhoi 19:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Talk:Florence

Dear El C, may I please ask you to comment on Talk:Florence#External_Links ? Since you were the last one to delete the contested external links, your input would be welcome in face of the personal accusations brought forward by User:Angiolo77. Thanks a lot, Sergio Ballestrero 19:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Let me know if he continues to add the link. El_C 19:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 152: / Line 152: @@
 Dear El C, may I please ask you to comment on [[Talk:Florence#External_Links]] ? Since you were the last one to delete the contested external links, your input would be welcome in face of the personal accusations brought forward by [[User:Angiolo77]]. Thanks a lot, [[User:Sergio.ballestrero|Sergio Ballestrero]] 19:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 :Sure, no problem. Let me know if he continues to add the link. [[User:El C|El_C]] 19:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
-== TareTone ==
- You stay out of my business. You don't know what's going on. You stay out of it and you work on what you're working on. You're trouble and you stay out of my business right now. You hear? [[User:TareTone|TareTone]] 20:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)